Circumcision is unquestionably an unnecessary physical mutilation. It is reasonable for the State to say that such a mutilation requires informed consent on the part of the mutilated. If men, on reaching the age of 18, decide that they want to cut off parts of their penis the government should butt out. Up until then the government should actively restrain adults from cutting off parts of a child's penis.

If an adult wanted to suck on a child’s penis, an action that produces no physical scaring or permanent damage, there is almost universal agreement that the State should prohibit this activity. Why is it then OK to say that the State should not prohibit a physical mutilation of this same penis by an adult?

California defends the right to Jew process! More seriously, there's a serious free exercise question here. Circumcsion is definitional for Jewish males--although there are a handful (perhaps literally that few) on the fringe of the Jewish world that deny it.P.S. Let's not forget the vile propaganda that was created in support of the ban:http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/

Of course the same San Francisco liberals who abhor circumcision don't mind if you cut the infant's spinal cords or poke their brains out as long as they're still in the womb. But mess with their penises after their birth, and you're in for trouble! What will they have to waggle around on Folsom Street in 18 years?!

Where does this leave abortion, then? Does San Francisco want to ban that, too?

It seems to me that the hypocrisy lies more in the other direction.

Virtually all pro-choice people concede that infants count as full human beings, even if fetuses don't. So it wouldn't be surprising to hear that they think infants shouldn't be mutilated.

Pro-life people, on the other hand, generally claim that a newborn infant has already been a human being for nine months -- which makes it hard to comprehend how mutilating one could possibly be acceptable. "Hack it up as much as you like, just don't kill it" doesn't seem like a sensible approach to child-rearing.

Mutilation of the penises of children is a deeply primitive impulse, the practice of which is surprisingly widespread in pre-agricultural cultures. It is not tied exclusively to any specific belief system.

I am not arguing that you can’t mutilate your own penis once you reach the age of consent. I am personally comfortable with any one on this forum in possession of such an organ cutting off as much of it as they see fit. I am uncomfortable with them performing a similar mutilation on their child’s penis. If, once the child reaches the age of consent, the parent and child, after a reasoned discussion, decide it is a good idea to cut off part of the child’s penis, then, at that point, it may not be unreasonable to argue that the government should restrain from interfering. Again, I am perfectly comfortable with adults cutting off as much of their penis as they wish. I would suggest counseling before embarking on such an action but I do not believe that this should be mandatory.

Both positions, it seems to me, represent the ultimate respect for the sanctity of life and the sanctity of human freedom. Taking another innocent human's life, and mutilating an innocent human without him having a choice should both be naturally abhorrent actions for the liberty lover.

There is no functional equivalence between male and female circumcision.

How is it possible to express concern about this particular [negligible] action of involuntary exploitation taken by the parents, while it is considered enlightened to be pro-choice and support the termination (often in the most horrid and grotesque manner) of a human life before it emerges from its mother's womb?

Is it reasonable to support a policy which, if it were national, would require every Jew who is in the least bit observant, to leave the U.S.?

I follow the logic. Parents have the right to raise their children as they choose, teaching them whatever they want, but don't have the right to do anything physically. Only a consenting adult has that right. The trouble is that definition of "religion" as simply confessional, does not apply here. In short, we're up to the point where the line between religion, law, and politics cannot be separated. Free exercise for Jews requires legal circumcision, full stop. But a certain understanding of natural right could mean that parents may not forcibly do surgery on a child. Reason, rightly understood, seeks to moderate such conflicts.

The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised.

The medical argument for cutting off part of a child's penis is exceedingly weak. It is statistically highly improbable that a child will contract either AIDS on penile cancer before the age of consent. Any benefit that might accrue to the population of male children from penile mutilation will be heavily out-weighed by complications due to the procedure.

If, at the age of consent, an individual decides that there is a significant health benefit to cutting off part of their penis, all power to them. Some women have pre-emptive mastectomies to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Some of these operations represent rational decision-making based on quantifiable genetic risk factors and some are the result of an irrational fear of cancer.

Since the rise of online porn, it has become increasingly common for women to have cosmetic surgery to enhance the appearance of their vaginas. If a man, once past the age of consent, decided to cut off part of his penis to enhance its visual appearance, I guess this is OK. Personally I am not that comfortable with either procedure because the risk associated with the surgery would seem to outweigh any possible benefit, except perhaps for someone working in the porn industry, but even in this case I don't think it should be illegal.

The US is one of the few predominantly Christian nations where circumcision is common. This came about because doctors in NYC noticed that Jewish boys seemed immune from a bunch of urinary type diseases that gentile boys could get.

Conditions are far more sanitary than one hundred years ago, so the benefit is likely slight--other than the STD angle. Opinions can vary on whether it ought to be done, but to claim there is no health or medical reason for the procedure is willful ignorance.

Gentile circumcision in the US started big time after WWII, in part because military doctors noticed far fewer problems among circumcised men living in foxhole conditions.

The worst problems occurred among troops in the North African theater where the extremely fine particles of sand built up in the foreskin and caused a horribly painful infection. The Army then figured out why the desert peoples of North Africa had practiced circumcision for 4 thousand years.

Cutting off a part of a child's penis has a low complication rate it does not have a zero complication rate. For children under the age of consent there is almost zero benefit and a slight risk hence, the lack of overall medical benefit.

It's not senseless or unnecessary to the people who do it. This is obvious.

I do think there is a fascinating psychological issue at work behind the fact that gay men, as a group, seem to me (based on what I see at Althouse) to be against circumcision. There's definitely a lot under the skin there, I think.

I will help you, though. The argument against you, particularly, is that you are never going to win because you simply don't believe that tradition, religion, and complex cultural issues matter. There are other reasons as well, but I won't go into them.

I am genuinely fascinated by what I perceive as a fascination among gay males with uncut cocks. I'd like to have that conversation. But I highly doubt that you will be able to add anything of substance.

The drive to mutilate the penises of young males is ancient. It clearly predates any current major religion. It is so pervasive in primitive societies that it is not unreasonable to suggest that penile mutilation conferred some evolutionary advantage at some point in early human prehistory. Whatever this advantage was it is unlikely that it was a health advantage, given the risk of life threatening infections before the invention of antibiotics. It is possible that the practice conferred some cultural advantage. It is unlikely that the conditions that may have made this practice advantageous in the past remain intact in a modern society.

There is a legitimate conservative argument for maintaining traditional cultural practices, no matter how nonsensical or even destructive, because the alternatives may be even worse. This argument has to be balanced against our general interest in protecting the rights of children.

Genital mutilation is not a universal tradition in Christian countries and its current popularity in the U.S. seems to be a cultural fad that is now waning, rather than a deeply held cultural practice. Jewish and Muslim adherents can make a stronger argument, but even in these religions the practice is not universal. Religious traditions change and adapt to local cultures. It is hard to see much downside to a trend that results in fewer people cutting off parts of children's penises.

Fuck you for your suggestion that being anti-mutilation has something to do with being gay, or having a "foreskin fetish". That's akin to saying that being anti-slavery is because you like big black cock. Revolting.

Do the anti-circumcisers feel that male circumcision is equivalent to the known practice of female circumcision?

Not as bad?

As bad?

Worse?

For the record, I was cut as a child and I'm a WASP. I'm grateful to my parents for making the choice and have never had problem or second thought about it. No mysterious impulse to put a sock on it or anything like that. If there's some aspect of sexual gratification I'm missing out on, well, exactly how stimulated can a man get? I mean, you either 'get there' or you don't.

There seems to me to be something very childish and disingenuous about the men who emote at length about the tragedy of their un-asked-for circumcision. As conservatives, we criticize others all the time for falling prey to the lure of seeing one's self as a victim. Why is this such a grave exception? Should we stop cutting embilical cords too? Is there a support group for people who mourn the loss of their tonsils?

This post doesn’t make a lot of sense. The poster has not established that any of the people arguing against cutting off parts of children's penises have in fact been subject to the procedure themselves. Sadly, much of the enthusiasm for the practice lies no deeper than feeling if it was good enough for me then it is good enough for my child.

A key principle is in question here. Will children remain prey in perpetuity to an ancient superstitious ritual mutilation that serves no rational purpose or will we move on to a healthier respect for a child’s right to self-determination on a non-trivial issue, which body parts to keep.

National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of New South Wales, Australia. dtempleton@nchecr.unsw.edu.auAbstractPURPOSE OF REVIEW:

Three large trials among African heterosexual men in the last decade have confirmed that male circumcision reduces HIV acquisition. This review summarizes recent data regarding circumcision performed primarily to reduce HIV in high-prevalence settings.RECENT FINDINGS:

Male circumcision more than halved the acquisition of HIV in the trials, and was associated with few adverse events and high levels of satisfaction. An additional trial found no direct reduction in HIV risk for female partners of circumcised men. Evidence for an HIV-protective effect of circumcision in men who have sex with men is weak and inconclusive. Acquisition of HSV-2 and high-risk human papillomavirus are both reduced in circumcised heterosexual men, whereas acquisition of common male urethral pathogens are not. Concerns exist that behavioural disinhibition could offset benefits of this intervention, and it remains to be seen whether the low rate of adverse events and adoption of safer sexual practices observed in the trials will be maintained in circumcision programmes outside trial settings.SUMMARY:

The evidence that circumcision reduces HIV in African heterosexual men is clear. The impedance of political, cultural and logistic factors on expansion of much-needed African circumcision services requires urgent attention.

This post is irrelevant. We are talking about U.S. children. As already discussed there is no net health benefit to male genital mutilation for this group. Not surprisingly the AMA does not recommend the procedure.

Boys with posterior urethral valves (PUV) have increased risks of urinary tract infection (UTI) voiding dysfunction and ongoing renal damage. Circumcision has been shown epidemiologically to reduce UTIs, but no trial has yet confirmed this in PUV. Circumcision is not routinely performed in boys with PUV in our unit, but one quarter of our patients are circumcised for religious reasons. It may be hypothesized that circumcision reduces the risk of subsequent urinary tract infection in boys with PUV. This study aims to test this hypothesis by comparing the risk of UTI, and subsequent renal outcome, in PUV in uncircumcised boys with those who were circumcised.METHODS:

A retrospective cross-sectional case note review of boys with PUV was performed, and the following were documented: age at presentation, method of diagnosis, method of treatment, initial renal status, and timing of treatment; use and timing of urinary tract diversion; timing of circumcision; and UTIs-date, organism, and treatment.RESULTS:

In PUV, circumcision reduces the incidence of UTI by 83%, every circumcision prevents 1 UTI on average. Early circumcision in all PUV is beneficial, but a larger randomised control trial should be considered to confirm this.

There are no absolutes regarding circumcision, and the decision to circumcise a child as a newborn or otherwise must be made after carefully weighing the alternatives to, and risks and benefits of, this common surgical procedure. These alternatives, risks, and benefits must be fully explained to parents considering circumcision, and informed consent must be obtained. In well-trained, experienced hands, circumcision is a safe procedure that effectively eliminates proven problems such as cancer of the penis, and may eliminate the problems of increased risk of urinary tract infection and sexually transmitted diseases.

Bioessays. 2007 Nov;29(11):1147-58.Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21(st) century.Morris BJ.Source

School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute, Building F13, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. brainm@medsci.usyd.edu.auAbstract

Circumcision of males represents a surgical "vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain-free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.